It didn't take long for President Bush to capitulate to the demands of the newly empowered Dhimmicrats by pulling the rug out from under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Don't get me wrong. I had my own problems with the way Rumsfeld has led the Pentagon over the years. But by having Rumsfled "resign" the day after Bush's party got trounced in the elections, the president sent all the wrong signals to our enemies and allies alike.
Remember, before the election, the No. 1 demand of the Dhimmicrats was for Rumsfeld's head on a platter. Giving in to that demand within 24 hours after they apparently captured both houses of Congress was a display of weakness, appeasement, surrender.
The Dhimmicrats don't want to fight our enemies. They are only willing to fight Americans willing to fight our enemies. This is why I call them "Dhimmicrats." They have accepted the role of Dhimmi servitude to Islamo-fascists.
Why Bush is intimidated by the Dhimmicrats now is beyond me. He has nothing to fear from them any more. They have already taken away his base of support in the Congress. He is a lame duck with only two more years to serve in the White House. Why not stand up to the Dhimmicrats now? What does he have to lose?
Perhaps Bush genuinely fears he is their next target – that impeachment hearings and investigations are coming. Maybe they are. If so, Bush just signaled weakness by dispensing of Rumsfeld. When the sharks smell blood in the water, it makes them more aggressive, not less.
Then there is the matter of Rumsfeld's replacement – Robert Gates.
It's too late to give Bush this advice, but may I make a bold suggestion for future presidents to consider?
No one should ever be nominated to be secretary of defense unless they have served honorably in the U.S. military. I think it should be a rule.
If any future president should consider naming me defense secretary, I would have to turn down the position. I might be qualified in other ways for the position, but because I have not served in the U.S. military, there is no way I could accept such a position. That Gates doesn't feel that way is even more troubling.
There are plenty of other positions in our civilian government – including the presidency – where military service should not be necessarily be considered a minimal requirement, though it is always a plus. But the defense secretary should understand war from the serviceman's point of view. He should have an understanding of conflict. He should have an appreciation for the horror of battle.
Robert Gates has an amazing resume – great academic qualifications, great experience, a proven track record of upward mobility. But it lacks one prerequisite, in my opinion, for consideration as a defense secretary. He never served in the military.
Gates' resume is more suited for service in the U.S. State Department than the Defense Department – not that we need any more eggheads in the State Department. He's Colin Powell without the military experience.
Mark my words. Gates has been brought in to the administration as defense secretary for one reason – to wave the white flag of surrender. His appointment spells retreat in Iraq and it spells accommodation with Iran.
That's his job – to be the architect of a completely new foreign policy, one far removed from the so-called "Bush Doctrine."
This is the kind of nomination one would expect from a Dhimmicrat president. And, I guess, that's why I'm not terribly surprised that Bush did it. Perhaps Bush really thinks he can appease the Dhimmicrats.
Not so. Dhimmicrats are happy to live under the thumb of our enemies – but they're vicious when it comes to fighting Americans who have the audacity to defend our way of life.
Related special offer:
"Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting"